Dan Margulis Applied Color Theory - Photography and Color Trends discussion

From: INTERNET:HOSTCompVIOC@aol.com, INTERNET:HOSTCompVIOC@aol.com
Date: Sun, May 14, 2000, 8:14 AM
RE: [ColorTheory] Photography and Color trends

One trend thats surprising me is the number of photographers that are
shooting color-negs and delivering custom made 11x14 c-prints; -hows that for low-tech color management? Another trend seems to be a move away from sheet film. We rarely see 8x10 any more, and most often receive roll film. Even many car shooters are using roll film, and you know those guys used large chromes as some sort of badge of honor or quality statement.
Many magazines and newspapers are moving to computer-to-plate and requesting digital files. USA Today wants a QuarkXpress file and will even deliver a press proof and give you an opportunity to make color corrections via a faxed form. Time publications want postscript created with LW Driver 8.3.3 only, and Popular Mechanics and Wired is even offering this new gee-whiz technology where readers can hold an ad in from of a web cam and it takes you to a special web site for coupons, special offers and so forth. None of the publications we deal with use workflows that incorporate icc profiles, even among those who output from PDF.
I've seen small in-house groups use ICC color-management in an attempt to get better color comps from office printers, but for the most part, Photoshop 5's new color preferences cause more problems than they solve. This is because its near impossible for users (even in small groups) to get and stay on the same page. Its a configuration nightmare with too many ways to fail or make costly mistakes. Sure it can work in certain situations, but you have to want it and it requires more time, energy and resources than the average user(s) is willing to give continuously.
But how does one application best serve ALL the complex color needs of an entire industry?
Jeff Walker-------------------------------------------------
From: Bob Smith, INTERNET:rmsmith@calpha.com
Date: Sun, May 14, 2000, 11:32 AM
RE: Re: [ColorTheory] Photography and Color trends

Jeff Walker wrote:
> One trend thats surprising me is the number of photographers that are
> shooting color-negs and delivering custom made 11x14 c-prints; -hows that for
> low-tech color management?
I'd bet they're not all coming from negs. C-prints from a high quality
digital printer like a Lambda are a good way for a photographer to shoot
digital... or use digital controls on a film shot... and still deliver a
conventional image. Its often impossible to tell that the resulting print
was not produced by the traditional neg/enlarger methods. (even when not
trying to do any modification to the image I can almost always produce a
better print by scanning a neg and printing to a Lambda than by conventional
darkroom methods)
I prefer to deliver digital wherever possible, but for the digital
photographer who doesn't want to deal with making separations... or has a
client that demands that they make their own seps... c-prints are not a bad
way to work. I've used this to deliver prints to go in press release
packages. The images are ultimately destined for reproduction but I have no
idea by whom or how. Its fairly simple for the photographer to calibrate his
system for good Lambda or Lightjet output as opposed to figuring out the
intricacies of various CMYK output. It also gets around client skepticism
over the usefulness of digital camera files that are likely somewhat lower
in resolution than their typical scans from film. Digital c-prints are also
usually lower priced than quality film recorder output and the results more
closely reflect what can actually be printed as opposed to a beautiful
transparency that may contain detail that will never make it to the printed
page.
A possible future trend in this area would be wider acceptance of other
digital prints. For under $500 a photographer can put a printer on his
desktop that I'd argue will out perform any c-print no matter how you make
it. The resulting prints from something like the Epson 1270 (or even their
earlier photo printers for that matter) scan beautifully. The only problem
I've seen with the prints is the incredulous look you get when you suggest
to someone that they actually use them for reproduction. They can't imagine
that prints from a cheap inkjet (they're thinking about the five year old HP
Deskwriter that they use to print their kid's drawings) could actually be
the source for high quality images.
> None of the
> publications we deal with use workflows that incorporate icc profiles, even
> among those who output from PDF.
They may not use it to communicate color to outside sources... that seems to
be where the only real points of confusion or controversy over icc methods
exist... but the only way to avoid using it internally is to use some
proprietary system which accomplishes pretty much the same thing.
> But how does one application best serve ALL the complex color needs of an
> entire industry?
let alone many industries. I know a neurosurgeon that uses Photoshop to help find information in brain scan images. There are few if any other pieces of software out there that are being used as serious production tools in such varied ways across such a diverse user base.
Bob Smith
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Andrew Rodney, INTERNET:andrew@digitaldog.net
Date: Sun, May 14, 2000, 10:12 AM
RE: Re: Dan-[ColorTheory] Photography and Color trends

HOSTCompVIOC@aol.com wrote:
> One trend thats surprising me is the number of photographers that are
> shooting color-negs and delivering custom made 11x14 c-prints; -hows that for
> low-tech color management?
The real downside (other then no real reference like a transparency) is that
this moves the image another generation (to print) and introduces yet
another H&D curve insuring less shadow to highlight detail. With any half
way decent film scanner, I can produce a file that I can output with far
more tonal information (compression to the final output device) then you can
get with the best hand made custom print.
> Ive seen small in-house groups use icc color-management in an attempt to get
> better color comps from office printers, but for the most part, Photoshop 5's
> new color preferences cause more problems than they solve.
In the above example, I'd submit that the problem isn't Photoshop's Color
Management nor color management in any form but rather someone using a
totally inappropriate tool for the job (office printers) especially if you
define such a printer as a toner based printer . Now if you define such a
printer as say an Epson 6 color ink jet, color management is absolutely
mandatory to provide a matching proof but this is certainly doable and
something many are successfully implement. In fact, getting ANY ink jet
(Iris on down) to match a contract proof requires some form of color
management. If you have a big Iris, you can use their proprietary methods.
If you want to use ICC color management on the Iris (or for that matter the
Epson), that is doable. There really isn't a big difference between an Epson
5000 and an office Epson like a 1200 or EX in getting them to match a
contract proof once you deal with a rip and color management.
> Sure it can work in certain situations, but you have to want
> it and it requires more time, energy and resources than the average user(s)
> is willing to give continuously.
You've hit the nail on the head here. It's true for just about an work be it
graphics on desktop machines or any complex system we have. There are users
who own Photoshop (or Quark, or Illustrator....)but that doesn't mean the
average PS user has the time, energy and resources to know what the heck he
or she is doing with a photo.
> But how does one application best serve ALL the complex color needs of an
> entire industry?
A lofty goal. Something that may simply be impossible with today's
technology and users. Certainly something to strive for but not something to
ignore, fear or criticize when the application only serves some of the needs
of as yet an undefined (and I'd submit undefinable) industry!
Andrew Rodney
www.digitaldog.netFrom: Dan Margulis, INTERNET:76270.1033@compuserve.com
Date: Sun, May 14, 2000, 2:04 PM
RE: Re: Dan-[ColorTheory] Photography and Color trends

Jeff writes:
>>One trend thats surprising me is the number of photographers that are
shooting color-negs and delivering custom made 11x14 c-prints; -hows that
for
low-tech color management? Another trend seems to be a move away from sheet film. We rarely see 8x10 any more, and most often receive roll film. Even
many car shooters are using roll film, and you know those guys used large
chromes as some sort of badge of honor or quality statement.>>
This is actually progress and reflects the increasing sophistication of
these photographers. Go back five years and the typical photographer knew
squat about the process. They were using 8x10 chromes because somebody told
them that this is the best way, and why take a chance that the job will get
screwed up and the printer would say it's because the photographer skimped
and used 4x5?
Today many photographers have gotten sick of being at the mercy of the
printer and the service bureau and are no longer intimidated. They know
that the only reason to use 8x10 is if you own stock in the film company.
Similarly, they've found out that shooting negs is in many ways more
convenient than chrome, *except* that some people down the line don't like
to work with negs. So they've come up with the C-print option and, as Bob
says, Epson prints will be next.
>>Many magazines and newspapers are moving to computer-to-plate and
requesting digital files.>>
That's progress too.
>>Ive seen small in-house groups use icc color-management in an attempt to
get better color comps from office printers, but for the most part,
Photoshop 5's new color preferences cause more problems than they solve.
This is because its near impossible for users (even in small groups) to get
and stay on the same page. Its a configuration nightmare with too many ways
to fail or make
costly mistakes. Sure it can work in certain situations, but you have to
want it and it requires more time, energy and resources than the average
user(s) is willing to give continuously.>>
This states it very well. That's its strength area--the single,
well-disciplined user, occasionally a small workgroup, never a large
organization, never in conjunction with strangers.
<<But how does one application best serve ALL the complex color needs of an
entire industry?>>
By recognizing that many different workflows are possible and that
programmers may not fully understand the rationale behind each one. By
offering as many capabilities as possible in a way that is as unobtrusive
as possible to those who do not intend to use them.
Dan Margulis-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Andrew Rodney, INTERNET:andrew@digitaldog.net
To: Color Theory, INTERNET:colortheory@listbot.com
Date: Sun, May 14, 2000, 2:24 PM
RE: Re: Dan-[ColorTheory] Photography and Color trends

Applied Color Theory in Photoshop
on 5/14/00 11:58 AM, Dan Margulis at 76270.1033@compuserve.com wrote:
> This is actually progress and reflects the increasing sophistication of
> these photographers. Go back five years and the typical photographer knew
> squat about the process. They were using 8x10 chromes because somebody told
> them that this is the best way, and why take a chance that the job will get
> screwed up and the printer would say it's because the photographer skimped
> and used 4x5?
I seriously doubt any pro photographer that can successfully operate a view
camera (be it 4x5 or 8x10) doesn't understand the differences between the
two film sizes. 4x5 Ektachrome and 8x10 Ektachrome are identical and they
all knew this. The only difference is the size meaning when the job got
scanned, the enlargement factor for one was much smaller then the other and
you usually got better quality up to a point. And the "somebody's" that told
them to shoot 8x10 for a job verses 4x5 wasn't anyone in printing or
prepress but rather the art director who the photographer worked for (or the
photographer just preferred to use the larger view camera/film).
There are some rational reasons to shoot 8x10 for *some* jobs, cost aside.
If you are shooting a car that is going to a very high quality print job
(like those expensive fancy brochures the dealers hand out), just examining
an 8x10 Polaroid verses a 4x5 makes it much easier to spot any lighting
problems or other defects. Certainly on location car shots, you don't have
the luxury of shooting and waiting for the E6 film to come back from the lab
to inspect such problems. That big Polaroid is a life savor.
> They know
> that the only reason to use 8x10 is if you own stock in the film company.
That's certainly not an accurate statement. Or I should say, it's a
statement from someone that isn't a professional photographer!
As for using an Epson or similar print, there are some downsides depending
on the color of the original. You simply can't get a good pure red out of an
Epson printer like you could with say a Fuji Pictrography 3000 or the Lambda
that has been discussed. It's an issue of color gamut and the inks used. You
may get the nice pure red in the scan but no amount of tweaking will get a
pure, non yellowish red of an Epson; I've tried. You still have to deal with
the gamut of the final CMYK device but if the print provided for scanning
doesn't have the color, you've lost the possibility of getting that red from
the start.
Andrew Rodney
www.digitaldog.net
------------------------------------------------------
From: Chris Murphy, INTERNET:lists@colorremedies.com
Date: Sun, May 14, 2000, 2:21 PM
RE: Re: [ColorTheory] Photography and Color trends

> None of the
>publications we deal with use workflows that incorporate icc profiles, even
>among those who output from PDF.
For publications you shouldn't have to. In the US there is a standard
called SWOP for printing to a magazine. If SWOP separations per TR001 characterization doesn't get you what you're expecting, the printer isn't
following the standard for magazine publication.
So if you want to use an ICC profile, you certainly can, you would do
this at the separation stage well before the publication gets ahold of
your files for printing.Chris Murphy
--------------------------------------------------------
From: Dan Margulis, INTERNET:76270.1033@compuserve.com
Date: Sun, May 14, 2000, 2:05 PM
RE: Re: [ColorTheory] Photography and Color trends


Bob writes:
>>A possible future trend in this area would be wider acceptance of other
digital prints. For under $500 a photographer can put a printer on his
desktop that I'd argue will out perform any c-print no matter how you make
it. The resulting prints from something like the Epson 1270 (or even their
earlier photo printers for that matter) scan beautifully. The only problem
I've seen with the prints is the incredulous look you get when you suggest
to someone that they actually use them for reproduction. They can't
imagine
that prints from a cheap inkjet (they're thinking about the five year old
HP
Deskwriter that they use to print their kid's drawings) could actually be
the source for high quality images.>>
That's exactly correct. Given a choice of what to scan I'd take the Epson
output any time. Only a matter of time before people start to figure it
out. And once they do it won't be long before they figure out that if they got the digital file that made that Epson print, then they wouldn't have to scan anything at all.
Dan Margulis-------------------------------------------------------
From: Bob Smith, INTERNET:rmsmith@calpha.com
Date: Sun, May 14, 2000, 4:23 PM
RE: Re: [ColorTheory] Photography and Color trends

Andrew Rodney wrote:
> It's an issue of color gamut and the inks used. You
> may get the nice pure red in the scan but no amount of tweaking will get a
> pure, non yellowish red of an Epson; I've tried. You still have to deal with
> the gamut of the final CMYK device but if the print provided for scanning
> doesn't have the color, you've lost the possibility of getting that red from
> the start.
You can say something similar about most any original used for scanning.
They all have weak areas and strong areas as far as how well their colors
relate to the final CMYK gamut. Ektacolor prints can have pretty weak
saturated yellows (does anyone else find that a bit ironic?). In most real
world images its not often a major issue because we're rarely dealing with
large areas of near fully saturated pure color... and because we rarely
limit ourselves to one particular tool. Lets just say I probably wouldn't
select an Epson print as the best thing to scan if I was shooting a stable
of red (is there any other color?) Ferraris at sunset.
Bob Smith-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Bob Smith, INTERNET:rmsmith@calpha.com
Date: Sun, May 14, 2000, 4:23 PM
RE: Re: [ColorTheory] Photography and Color trends
Andrew Rodney wrote:
> The real downside (other then no real reference like a transparency)
I'd argue that the print is a better reference than a transparency (assuming
print reproduction) because its a version of the image that's already been
edited, either in the darkroom or digitally, for optimum presentation in a
reflective medium.
> With any half
> way decent film scanner, I can produce a file that I can output with far
> more tonal information (compression to the final output device) then you can
> get with the best hand made custom print.
Which is exactly why a photographer may want to deliver a print. If an RGB
file, neg, or transparency is delivered then you're leaving many subjective
judgements about how the image should appear in print up to the person who
makes the scan or separations. By delivering a print you've already edited
the original image data down to how you expect to see it on the printed
page. Its a relatively simple process to scan a good print in such a way
that the reproduction closely resembles the original print.
I was a big fan of c-prints way before any of us were thinking about desktop
digital systems for exactly this reason. A print contains less info than a
transparency but it contains all that's needed for reproduction as ink on
paper and its far less likely to suffer the consequences of a scanner
operator that has a considerably different idea of what the image should
look like.
Your point about gathering more info from a film scan than you can get from
a custom print is the argument for a photographer to do the scan and output
to a digital printer as opposed to relying solely on darkroom based
c-prints.
Please note that I'm not trying to pass this off as the ultimate workflow.
I still prefer to do my own separations to target specific devices and
deliver appropriate files, but for some photographers and some situations,
reproduction grade prints are a very viable option.
Bob Smith

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Andrew Rodney, INTERNET:andrew@digitaldog.net
To: Color Theory, INTERNET:colortheory@listbot.com
Date: Sun, May 14, 2000, 4:55 PM
RE: Re: Dan-Re: [ColorTheory] Photography and Color trends


on 5/14/00 2:09 PM, Bob Smith at rmsmith@calpha.com wrote:
> You can say something similar about most any original used for scanning.
True but if getting a good solid red was something I needed to get in a
print to scan and hopefully separate into CMYK, I'd be in a lot more trouble
with an Epson print verses a Fuji Pictrography 3000/4000 print. The best I'm
going to get with the Epson is a polluted red. Once the print is scanned, I
could bring back the purer red in Photoshop using selective color.
> Lets just say I probably wouldn't
> select an Epson print as the best thing to scan if I was shooting a stable
> of red (is there any other color?) Ferraris at sunset.
Reds are the colors that seem to disappoint the most with Epson prints but
yellow apparently a problem to some degree too.
Andrew Rodney-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Andrew Rodney, INTERNET:andrew@digitaldog.net
To: INTERNET:colortheory@listbot.com
Date: Sun, May 14, 2000, 4:55 PM
RE: Re: Dan-Re: [ColorTheory] Photography and Color trends

on 5/14/00 2:09 PM, Bob Smith at rmsmith@calpha.com wrote:
> I'd argue that the print is a better reference than a transparency (assuming
> print reproduction) because its a version of the image that's already been
> edited, either in the darkroom or digitally, for optimum presentation in a
> reflective medium.
I'd agree with that too if the print had the rendering you (the
photographer) wanted. The tonal issues are still a consideration.
> Your point about gathering more info from a film scan than you can get from
> a custom print is the argument for a photographer to do the scan and output
> to a digital printer as opposed to relying solely on darkroom based
> c-prints.
Yes I think the photographer should have control over the color whenever
possible all the way to the final print (ink on paper) assuming he/she wants
this control and has the skill to do it. I think the skill is something most
photographers can master.
Andrew Rodney

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: INTERNET:mact@adcomgraphics.com, INTERNET:mact@adcomgraphics.com
Date: Sun, May 14, 2000, 6:23 PM
RE: Re: [ColorTheory] Photography and Color trends

<<. Given a choice of what to scan I'd take the Epson
output any time. Only a >>
I get a lot of inkjet prints to scan. Only they are usually on plain paper,
360 dpi, and the client often claims "that's all I have" because the image on it was downloaded from the web.
IOW, not everybody is working the high (or even middle) end of this business
<BG>Mac Townsend,
Adcom Graphics, Fairfield, CA:
www.adcomgraphics.com
A Corel Platinum Service Bureau------------------------------------------------------------
From: INTERNET:digital1@inmind.com, INTERNET:digital1@inmind.com
Date: Mon, May 15, 2000, 9:10 AM
RE: Re: Dan-Re: [ColorTheory] Photography and Color trends
Andrew Rodney wrote:
>
> Yes I think the photographer should have control over the color whenever
> possible all the way to the final print (ink on paper) assuming he/she wants
> this control and has the skill to do it. I think the skill is something most
> photographers can master.
>
As a digital photographer for 3 1/2 years, I have found it necessary to:
1. know something about color theory and the numbers that describe colors and
2. Profiles that describe the device at the print firm that will proof what
I have handed off and be the basis for someone to say that what I have produced
is "too red, too dark, flat, etc., etc., yada yada."
The discussion here on ICC workflows and who needs them and who doesn't give a
rip, are very interesting, but I can see the validity peering through on both
sides. With the introduction af the Nikon D-1, we are now seeing the rush
towards digital capture that I had predicted would take place about 2 years ago.
Price is what did it. We can now follow the money, but must see who comes up
with software, hardware and educational solutions that will allow this large
group of new digital practitioners to successfully hand off files to the clients
who pay them. A great many of these new practitioners are ignorant boobs in terms
of understanding what a successful file is. I have monitored and participated in
several discussion groups composed of digital photographers, and most newbies are
unaware that they are now not only the "film" manufacturer and the lab, but must
also be the prepress and service bureau. If not actually functioning in a
prepress capacity, this new digitographer has to know how to deal with negative
feedback from a client based on what the SB or EP folks do with the file.
The portions of an ICC workflow that I have adopted already are the
characterization of my monitor, my 8650 dye sub printer, and the proofing
devices at each print firm or lab that I deal with. Only in that way can I deal
with a gamut problem before the file leaves me. The wrinkle is that in most
cases a service bureau does not know who will be printing a job much less what
paper stock it will go on, and I must do my work at least one step earlier in
the sequence than the SB. Additionally, the designer may ask me for RGB because
he/she wants to perform additional edits on the file like filters that are not
available for CMYK.
Now, if we really want a peek at my profiled proof after the designer has worked
on the images, I should get them back and do the conversion through the profile
that I built for the printer they are going to, and simulate that on my dye
sub. In order to do this accurately, the designer would have had to worked in
the same RGB editing space I did, and saved the file with that same working space
profile. If I handed him the files in the proper CMYK space the same would be
true. I have tried doing a simulation of identical files, one with the correct
source, and one with an incorrect source, both being converted to the same
destination (my 8650) and the resulting proofs were decidedly different.
Bottom line: I can successfully target the printer's results far earlier in the
process than usual, but the knowledge and practices of the next link in the chain
can either maintain this early peek at the quality or skew it. I can only charge
for my increased capabilities if the client does not have to pay again for this
same service once they get to the SB or EP folks.
Les Schofer
Schofer Digital---------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Andrew Rodney, INTERNET:andrew@digitaldog.net
To: INTERNET:colortheory@listbot.com
Date: Mon, May 15, 2000, 10:28 AM
RE: Re: Dan-Re: [ColorTheory] Photography and Color trends

Applied Color Theory in Photoshop
on 5/15/00 7:08 PM, Les Schofer at digital1@inmind.com wrote:
> With the introduction af the Nikon D-1, we are now seeing the rush
> towards digital capture that I had predicted would take place about 2 years
> ago.
That and (hopefully) the new Fuji S1. As for the D1, I had one for a few
weeks to review and found that like the other digital cameras I've been
testing, a custom input profile is more necessary then even a custom scanner
profile! The color these cameras produce, even when they have a gray balance
option greatly improve when their RGB is specified for conversion into a
Working Space or output space. I've shown this in print several times in PEI
mag and the July issue will have yet another dramatic example of how a Kodak
DCS-660 camera improves dramatically with inclusion of an input profile
verses not having one and simply passing "unknown" RGB through the process.
As Chris has correctly pointed out, the digital file has no reference other
then itself. In the case of my tests, the new GretagMacbeth camera target
(and the older Macbeth target) were photographed and we used that original
item as our reference to compare both the soft proof and final output (to
CMYK and RGB devices) and the matching WITH the profile workflow was so
close to the original it was quite frighting. Without a profile, the colors
were FAR from the original target, especially in the reds.
Andrew RodneyFrom: INTERNET:digital1@inmind.com, INTERNET:digital1@inmind.com
Date: Fri, May 19, 2000, 12:41 PM
RE: Re: [ColorTheory] Photography and Color trends

Dan Margulis wrote
> skill is proper lighting, especially in a studio situation. Here, even an
> infinite number of pictures will yeild not a single one that is
> satisfactory
> according to contemporary commercial "standards.">>
>
> We've already seen, though, that this workflow is effective. When studio
> camera backs cost $25,000, service bureaus would buy them and then hire
> college students to shoot with them round the clock. It goes without saying
> that the technical quality of this photography left something to be desired
> in comparison to the work of experienced professionals. Yet the work was
> widely accepted and took a fair-sized chunk of business away from the pros.
>
> What I am suggesting probably would result in even worse photography, but
> the people who would be doing it might well be able to compensate for it.
> Thanks to Photoshop, the technical quality of the original photograph is
> not nearly as important as it used to be. The client only gets to see the
> corrected version.
Dan
I have been contemplating starting a thread of this nature on a professional
photography forum. I have been noticing a trend in my small market of much
higher use of royalty free photography for applications where I would've been
hired to shoot something specific for that type of job. The work that I am
losing is being done by a designer/Photoshop practitioner, "making do" with RF
images or altering work I previously shot for them. I shoot 100% digitally with
a 6 megapixel portable camera, so virtually all of my images are convenient for
"elemental" photography, and for digital repurposing. The designer is the one
in the driver's seat in determining what digital route is the one to be taken.
If you look at job opportunities, most companies are far more likely to have a
graphic designer staff position than a photographic one. Now that the
convenience of going out and taking a digital photograph with a $1k camera with
3 megapixel resolution is here, the cost and logistics of hiring the
professional photographer are becoming less attractive and less necessary in an
increasing number of situations.
Dan, the comparison you did in Makeready between typesetters and professional photographers is swelling to the level of prophecy.
Les Schofer
_______________________________________
From: Dan Margulis, INTERNET:76270.1033@compuserve.com
Date: Tue, May 16, 2000, 12:52 AM
RE: Re: [ColorTheory] Photography and Color trends
Les writes:
>> With the introduction af the Nikon D-1, we are now seeing the rush
towards digital capture that I had predicted would take place about 2 years ago. Price is what did it.>>
We're about to see even more. I've been playing with a <$1,000 consumer
digital, just to see what the state of the art was. I wasn't expecting much
and was very surprised by the high quality of the images. As long as the
resolution is sufficient, it's absolutely comparable to film plus a
high-end scan.
This opens the possibility of non-photographers getting involved and
putting even more pressure on the non-digital professional. If I were a
designer, the thought of doing my own shoot and being that much ahead
timewise would attractive. The infinite-number-of-monkeys method is a good
one with such a camera--if I point in the general direction of the subject
and keep clicking the shutter a small percentage of what results will be of
usable quality. The fact that 95% of the images go directly into the trash
is of little import in this scenario.
>>The wrinkle is that in most cases a service bureau does not know who will
be printing a job much less what paper stock it will go on, and I must do
my work at least one step earlier in the sequence than the SB.
Additionally, the designer may ask me for RGB because he/she wants to
perform additional edits on the file like filters that are not available
for CMYK.>>
That's the hell of the whole process. Sometimes you have good control of
the situation and sometimes you don't. You have to hang loose and be
prepared for lots of contingencies.
>>Bottom line: I can successfully target the printer's results far earlier
in the
process than usual, but the knowledge and practices of the next link in the
chain
can either maintain this early peek at the quality or skew it. >>
Very true. Within your own operation, therefore, it pays to spend time and
money on some type of calibration, understanding that you'll probably be
dedicated enough to maintain the discipline to keep everything in sync. As
far as down the line, you can only hope for the best and prepare for the
worst. Very commonly you are going to have to guess at what the next device
is going to be like. If you do continuing jobs you may have to recalibrate
frequently as you gain more knowledge of what the process is. It wouldn't
be that way in a perfect world, but we have to live in this one.
Dan Margulis____________________
From: Chris Murphy, INTERNET:lists@colorremedies.com
Date: Fri, May 19, 2000, 3:14 PM
RE: Re: [ColorTheory] Photography and Color trends

Applied Color Theory in Photoshop
>Dan, the comparison you did in Makeready between typesetters and professional
>photographers is swelling to the level of prophecy.
I think there is a better analogy between typesetters and service bureaus than typesetters and photographers. High quality digital is certainly
coming down in price, but skill is still needed. Is the demand for
high-quality photography dropping? Perhaps one could argue that the
average consumer for digital images has less of a need for high-quality
photography than previously thought because of the barriers of obtaining
lower-cost imagery. That is, they've been "forced" to go with higher
quality because anything less was below even their standards. The
increasing availability of inexpensive digital cameras that produce good
results simply makes "good enough" finally available to this market.
That's a shift in the market, not a drop in demand for true high-quality
photography from those who want and demand high-quality photography.
Service bureaus don't have such an argument. Prepress equipment and color
correction, retouching skills are being brought in-house at the medium to
large sized print shops. The skill set isn't going away, but large part
of the profits are moving out of service bureaus because the cost of
doing what they used to do is significantly more available. You don't
need to pay a service bureau 1000% mark-up on film. You don't need to pay
them for the best possible separations. You don't need them to deal with
the printer anymore either. The printers have figured out that service
can be a part of their business too, not just squishing some ink on some
paper. It's POSSIBLE to cut out the middle-man (the service bureau)
without sacrificing quality. It is not yet possible to cut out the
professionally photographer if you want high-end photography; and I'm
not talking about resolution of the camera.Chris Murphy
------------------------------------------------------------
From: INTERNET:HOSTCompVIOC@aol.com, INTERNET:HOSTCompVIOC@aol.com
Date: Fri, May 19, 2000, 2:28 PM
RE: Re: [ColorTheory] Photography and Color trends

Applied Color Theory in Photoshop
In a message dated 5/19/00 9:15:02 AM, Dan writes:
<<Thanks to Photoshop, the technical quality of the original photograph is
not nearly as important as it used to be.>>
Very true and scary. Were all being slowly displaced by technology. Many art
directors bought digital point and shots for creating quick layouts only to
discover that what they created was good enough for many situations. Youd
be surprised how quickly even the most anal art director will jump off the
quality bandwagon when the price is right, and the project could possibly be
considered done.
Remember the old phrase, everyones an art director? With $900 digital
point and shoots capturing quality 4.3 megapixel images, everyones a damn photographer and loving it.
Just keep telling everyone that doing your own photography is like using
QuarkXpress templates and buying your daughters prom dress at K-mart.
Superior lighting and use of optics... yeah thats the ticket.
Jeff Walker
___________From: Dan Margulis, INTERNET:76270.1033@compuserve.com
Date: Fri, May 19, 2000, 8:14 AM
RE: Re: [ColorTheory] Photography and Color trends
Jonathan writes:
<<Yes, inexpensive digital cameras will put pressure on commercial
photographers, but I don't think it will play out quite this way. The
ability
to "acquire" the image is only half, or less than half, the problem. The
real
skill is proper lighting, especially in a studio situation. Here, even an
infinite number of pictures will yeild not a single one that is
satisfactory
according to contemporary commercial "standards.">>
We've already seen, though, that this workflow is effective. When studio
camera backs cost $25,000, service bureaus would buy them and then hire
college students to shoot with them round the clock. It goes without saying
that the technical quality of this photography left something to be desired
in comparison to the work of experienced professionals. Yet the work was
widely accepted and took a fair-sized chunk of business away from the pros.What I am suggesting probably would result in even worse photography, but
the people who would be doing it might well be able to compensate for it.
Thanks to Photoshop, the technical quality of the original photograph is
not nearly as important as it used to be. The client only gets to see the
corrected version.
Dan Margulis___________________________
From: jonathan clymer, INTERNET:jeclymer@bellatlantic.net
Date: Thu, May 18, 2000, 7:53 PM
RE: Re: [ColorTheory] Photography and Color trendsDan Margulis wrote:
>
> This opens the possibility of non-photographers getting involved and
> putting even more pressure on the non-digital professional. If I were a
> designer, the thought of doing my own shoot and being that much ahead
> timewise would attractive. The infinite-number-of-monkeys method is a good
> one with such a camera--if I point in the general direction of the subject
> and keep clicking the shutter a small percentage of what results will be of
> usable quality. The fact that 95% of the images go directly into the trash
> is of little import in this scenario.
Quite a provocative scenario it is!
Yes, inexpensive digital cameras will put pressure on commercial
photographers, but I don't think it will play out quite this way. The ability
to "acquire" the image is only half, or less than half, the problem. The real
skill is proper lighting, especially in a studio situation. Here, even an
infinite number of pictures will yeild not a single one that is satisfactory
according to contemporary commercial "standards."
BUT. If enough bad pictures of a certain style are taken, an aesthetic
sensibilty will be developed in which they are prefered. Consider "distressed"
typography, or "industrial" music (monotonous beat with screams, shrieks, and
groans). The new style will be "better."
It will be an interesting world.
Jonathan Clymer------------------------------------------------From: Chris Murphy, INTERNET:lists@colorremedies.com
Date: Sat, May 20, 2000, 12:26 PM
RE: Re: [ColorTheory] Photography and Color trends

>As someone else pointed out, true high-end work will probably
>still use high-end photographers, but there's a lot of
>not-so-high-end work that doesn't really need that level of
>skill-- they just need to avoid making really obvious mistakes.
>At one time, that required hiring a photographer. Now it doesn't.I agree. Technological advances in digital photography, the improvement in quality and the reduction in price is analogous to desktop publishing. Desktop publishing is a technological advance that in some cases has improved quality, certainly improved speed, and absolutely has reduced
cost (for the consumer at least).
Photography and independent prepress shops may ultimately have the same
destiny. Shrink dramatically. Everyone becomes a photographer, a few at the high-end remain. Nearly everyone incorporates aspects of prepress
(ad agencies, printers, publishers) and moves out the service bureau
except for a few with niche capabilities. The rest either die off, buy
other companies, or get bought - conglomeration.Chris Murphy_______________________
From: "Ron Bean", INTERNET:rbean@execpc.com
Date: Sat, May 20, 2000, 11:06 AM
RE: Re: [ColorTheory] Photography and Color trends

Applied Color Theory in Photoshop
>>Now that the
>>convenience of going out and taking a digital photograph with a $1k camera
>>with 3 megapixel resolution is here, the cost and logistics of hiring the
>>professional photographer are becoming less attractive and less necessary
>>in an increasing number of situations.
By the way, if any of you guys think amateur photographers can't
replace you because they don't know enough about lighting, take a
look at a book called "Light Science & Magic" by Hunter and Fuqua
(ISBN 0-240-80275-6). Then ask yourself what would happen if a
lot of art directors started getting ahold of it, or if they
started handing out copies with every new digital camera.
The first edition was published almost 10 years ago, but at that
time it was mainly of interest to photography students. If the
newer low-end digital cameras are as good as people are saying,
then anyone with $1000 will be in a position to take advantage of
the lessons in this book-- including art directors, graphic
designers, etc. It's very well written, and you don't have to be
a genius to understand it (although it helps if you're an artist).
>The error many make is by pointing out the number of situations in
>which this workflow is admittedly *not* satisfactory. Even if, let's say,
>it's only satisfactory for 30% of all commercial situations, and only in a
>third of those cases does it actually replace the photographer, that's
>still going to have a very serious impact on the overall market for
>professional photography.
As someone else pointed out, true high-end work will probably
still use high-end photographers, but there's a lot of
not-so-high-end work that doesn't really need that level of
skill-- they just need to avoid making really obvious mistakes.
At one time, that required hiring a photographer. Now it doesn't.
The only question is whether people are willing to put in the
effort of learning how to do it themselves, rather than hiring
someone else.
Bruce Sterling once gave a speech to a group of video game
designers, in which he told them it didn't matter if their music
and graphics weren't great art, as long as they didn't obviously
suck-- a little attention to the details can go a long way.
The same could be said for a lot of printing jobs.
------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Dan Margulis, INTERNET:76270.1033@compuserve.com
Date: Sat, May 20, 2000, 9:04 AM
RE: Re: [ColorTheory] Photography and Color trends
Les writes:
>>I have been noticing a trend in my small market of much
higher use of royalty free photography for applications where I would've
been
hired to shoot something specific for that type of job. The work that I am
losing is being done by a designer/Photoshop practitioner, "making do" with
RF
images or altering work I previously shot for them.>>
You've already been being hurt badly by royalty-stock for several years.
That development has about cut in half the number of photographers who
shoot stock for a living. All those guys who were driven out of that have
tried to recover business somewhere else, for example by targeting the clients of people like yourself. If desperate enough they cut prices
ridiculously and promised unreasonable turnarounds. This, as I indeed
predicted in 1995, depressed large parts of the trade.
>>I shoot 100% digitally with a 6 megapixel portable camera, so virtually
all of my images are convenient for "elemental" photography, and for
digital repurposing. The designer is the one
in the driver's seat in determining what digital route is the one to be
taken.
If you look at job opportunities, most companies are far more likely to
have a
graphic designer staff position than a photographic one. Now that the
convenience of going out and taking a digital photograph with a $1k camera
with 3 megapixel resolution is here, the cost and logistics of hiring the
professional photographer are becoming less attractive and less necessary
in an increasing number of situations.>>
Exactly. The error many make is by pointing out the number of situations in
which this workflow is admittedly *not* satisfactory. Even if, let's say,
it's only satisfactory for 30% of all commercial situations, and only in a
third of those cases does it actually replace the photographer, that's
still going to have a very serious impact on the overall market for
professional photography.
The advice is basically the same as in that column you referred to. You
can't compete on turnaround against a prepress facility that can throw 20 people at the job if necessary. You can't compete on price against
desperate professionals who've been displaced by technological developments and aren't smart enough to adjust. The logical alternative is to become full-service and to guide the progress of the image wherever the client wants to take it. This unfortunately requires more technical knowledge than used to be the case. However, those photographers who have acquired it are doing reasonably well, while those who have not are barely hanging on in a time of the strongest economy in history.
Dan Margulis
__________________
From: INTERNET:HOSTCompVIOC@aol.com, INTERNET:HOSTCompVIOC@aol.com
Date: Sun, May 21, 2000, 1:52 AM
RE: Re: [ColorTheory] Photography and Color trends
In a message dated 5/20/00 10:34:06 PM, Chris writes:
>>Offset packaging and flexography prepress requirements are certainly very different. A minority of service bureaus handing these kinds of files which must mean a small percentage has the market, and only a small percentage is needed. But there are products that assist in the process and a few new one's just about to come to market. If there is demand, someone will create it.>>
Let me know when someone develops a product that vignettes two metallic inks
into each other without dry trapping or selects the proper rotation.
<<What prevents the printer himself from saying, "this is a service I
should offer?" It's going to be a lot easier and safer for him to produce
proofs for his own press than expecting a service bureau to be
responsible for his output process.>>
I hear this argument repeatedly (normally from printers), and I admit it
sounds logical, but it doesnt always work that way in practice. Many film
only printers have moved into electronic prepress, by merely acquiring a
small local service bureau. But not every employee of that commercial printer
will have your best interest at heart. A pressman might wonder, should I
spend hours washing down my press to change that custom ink or simply let
this job gain a bit of red? Maybe no one will notice and If they do, will
they be smart enough to really know what happened? Theres a lot of
variables out there that no gee whiz technology will fix. Matter of fact,
gee whiz technology is usually so complex its always an easy target of
blame. I must of picked the wrong source profile or used that damn Leons
special RGB space again. No-no, I bet I used an embedded profile to convert
that was inadvertently embedded. Or did I convert using the right profile but
inadvertently assumed it was wrong? I better fire up the spectro and make
new profiles just to be sure. <G>
Jeff Walker_______________________________
From: Bob Smith, INTERNET:rmsmith@calpha.com
Date: Sat, May 20, 2000, 11:49 PM
RE: Re: [ColorTheory] Photography and Color trends

Dan Margulis wrote:
> The logical alternative is to become
> full-service and to guide the progress of the image wherever the client
> wants to take it. This unfortunately requires more technical knowledge than
> used to be the case. However, those photographers who have acquired it are
> doing reasonably well, while those who have not are barely hanging on in a
> time of the strongest economy in history.
I've been trying to figure out how to state my position on this thread and you just summed it up nicely in three sentences.
When I started my business in '75 I tried to differentiate myself from
other photographers in the area with the fact that I had the knowledge and
equipment to perform custom lab operations where others either relied on
outside services or delivered an image to the client that needed further
work. I had a VERY crude lab, but it worked. I could deliver sized and
matched c-prints or (or even dupe transparencies if I was feeling very
masochistic) suitable for gang separations. I tried to promote myself as a
photographer that could produce both good image content AND and an image
that would flow through the rest of the production cycle as painlessly and
efficiently as possible. Make the client's life simple. They like simple.
They'll pay for simple!
This is even more true in today's digital workflow. Its the reason I spenda ridiculous amount of time poring over lists like this one trying to extract any useful tidbit of info that I can find.
Think about how much you love those pieces of software that work exactly like they're supposed to and how much you hate the ones that constantly
plague you with even minor inconveniences. Clients have similar reactions
to the images they're working with... whether they come from a digital
photographer with limited skills or from do-it-yourself images made with a
camera that only does part of the job.
I think there will always be a market for a photographer that offers a
complete solution. The problem as Dan suggests is the downward price
pressure from a market saturated with photographers that have found that
their particular niche has withered away.
The last few years have been a wild ride and something tells me its only
just beginning.
Bob Smith__________________
From: Bob Smith, INTERNET:rmsmith@calpha.com
Date: Sat, May 20, 2000, 11:49 PM
RE: Re: [ColorTheory] Photography and Color trends
Les Schofer wrote:
> I have been noticing a trend in my small market of much
> higher use of royalty free photography for applications where I would've been
> hired to shoot something specific for that type of job. The work that I am
> losing is being done by a designer/Photoshop practitioner, "making do" with RF
> images or altering work I previously shot for them.
I started seeing these kinds of changes about six years ago. Intricate sets
and unusual locations are pretty much a thing of the past. Everything is
very product/person specific... the kinds of images that can't more easily
be faked, purchased or composed. The type of photography that clients are
requesting has changed but the volume of images that any one client uses has
dramatically increased. With color print production so much easier and cost
efficient, clients are updating brochures and catalogs more often... and
they're including more images in each piece. I think the problem some
photographers have with this trend is that they spend too much time fighting
it instead of trying to figure out how they can fit into it.
Some of my best clients have very capable photographers on staff... some
make very extensive use of stock photography or 3d illustration; but they still recognize the unique skills that I can bring to a particular project.
These are the best clients and the ones you really want to nurture. Its the
ones that don't really understand the process that will drop you in a
heartbeat when presented with what they perceive as a lower cost option (a
less skilled photographer or a do-it-yourself digital camera).
Bob Smith_____________________
From: Chris Murphy, INTERNET:lists@colorremedies.com
Date: Sat, May 20, 2000, 10:33 PM
RE: Re: [ColorTheory] Photography and Color trends

>Service bureaus still exist because of large publishers who do not choose to
>be in the electronic prepress business. Textbook publishers are only one
>example.
Yeah and ten years ago they still existed because pretty much no one
wanted to be in the prepress business. The base is trickling away. Ad
agencies are a virtual gold mine for service bureaus, but that gold mine
is drying up too.> Consumer package goods companies rely on the expertise of service
>bureaus to share the responsibility of high volume color critical packaging
>jobs that involve complex printing processes that are out of most people's
>scope of knowledge. Mistakes on these types of jobs are very costly and
>involve more than just the cost of printing.
Offset packaging and flexography prepress requirements are certainly very
different. A minority of service bureaus handing these kinds of files
which must mean a small percentage has the market, and only a small
percentage is needed. But there are products that assist in the process
and a few new one's just about to come to market. If there is demand,
someone will create it.
The reason why prepress is moving out of the service bureau and into the customer and printer locations, is that it is POSSIBLE and it is CHEAPER and getting more and more possible and cheaper every six months.
>In the world of packaging theres service bureaus that offer color
>management
>on the press and guarantee a predetermined variant as measured on the press
>sheet.
What prevents the printer himself from saying, "this is a service I
should offer?" It's going to be a lot easier and safer for him to produce
proofs for his own press than expecting a service bureau to be
responsible for his output process.
> Im sure their
>business
>has suffered, but they are still a very important part of this industry.
So was the typesetting industry and look at what happened to them. You
could even argue for quite some time they were better at what they did
than the computers but people STILL went with the Macs and eliminated an
industry. The trends are extremely similar and one that has been a
concern since the mid-90's when it was commonplace to see service bureaus
buying digital presses in order to compete.
Being an important part of the industry isn't enough, because no matter
how you slice it, a very small percentage of service bureaus are a
CRITICAL part of the industry.Chris Murphy____________________
From: Dan Margulis, INTERNET:76270.1033@compuserve.com
Date: Sun, May 21, 2000, 9:27 PM
RE: Re: [ColorTheory] Photography and Color trends
Bob writes:
>>I tried to promote myself as a photographer that could produce both good image content AND an image that would flow through the rest of the production cycle as painlessly and efficiently as possible. Make the
client's life simple. They like simple. They'll pay for simple!>>
The validity of that point has been amply demonstrated in the last five years, as those full-solution folks have gotten busier and busier.
Meanwhile, the distinction between trades has gotten very blurry. For
example, I haven't commented on the thread involving service bureaus,
because I'm not sure what a "service bureau" is any more. At one time, a "service bureau" basically rented out time on its equipment with very
limited technical support for its clients. A "prepress house" was more
oriented toward selling the skills of its employees and its own expertise
with color. Now, it's very hard to tell which is which.
That said, I'd agree with the comments that those companies who have what might be called the "service bureau mentality" are busy treading water at the moment. Those, however, who are full-service oriented, are, at least in the NYC area, just roaring along at business levels they never could have predicted a few years ago.
>>I think there will always be a market for a photographer that offers a complete solution. The problem as Dan suggests is the downward price pressure from a market saturated with photographers>>
There will always be a market for *anybody* that offers a complete
solution. In fact, it is somewhat of a misnomer to call yourself a
"photographer". In many ways, as I indicated above, you might be considered a "prepress house" or even a "service bureau."
Dan Margulis___________________________

If you,d like to participate with others in discussing Dan's book or related concepts, join the Applied Color Theory email discussion list! Enter your email address below, then click the 'Join List' button:

Home

Adobe Photoshop training classes are taught in the US by Sterling Ledet & Associates, Inc.